Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Policing and Courts: What Criminal Defendants Need to Know

Artificial intelligence is rapidly finding its way into Canada’s justice system. Police agencies are experimenting with AI-assisted report writing, surveillance technologies, and data analysis tools. Courts across the country are also exploring how AI might be used to improve efficiency and reduce delays.

While proponents argue that AI could streamline investigations and court administration, its growing use raises serious questions about privacy, fairness, transparency, and the protection of Charter rights.

For anyone facing criminal charges, understanding how AI may influence an investigation or prosecution is becoming increasingly important.

Palantir, Facial Recognition, and Predictive Technologies

Police services across Canada are increasingly adopting technologies that use artificial intelligence to analyze information, identify patterns, and generate investigative reports.

Another area attracting significant attention is the use of advanced data analytics platforms and facial recognition technology. Software developed by companies such as Palantir can aggregate and analyze large volumes of information from multiple databases, helping investigators identify relationships, patterns, and potential investigative leads. Facial recognition systems can compare images from surveillance footage, social media, driver’s licence databases, or other sources to identify individuals. While proponents argue these tools can improve investigative efficiency, critics have raised concerns regarding privacy, accuracy, algorithmic bias, and the potential for mass surveillance. 

Misidentifications have been documented in other jurisdictions, and civil liberties advocates continue to question whether existing legal safeguards are sufficient to protect Canadians from wrongful identification, intrusive data collection, and unreasonable state surveillance. As these technologies become more prevalent, courts will increasingly be asked to balance public safety interests against privacy rights and Charter protections.

One of the most significant developments is the introduction of AI-assisted police reporting tools. Axon’s “Draft One” system, for example, uses body-worn camera recordings to generate draft police narratives that officers can review and edit before incorporating them into official reports.

Supporters argue that these tools save officers time and reduce administrative burdens. However, the use of AI-generated police narratives raises important legal questions.

Who Actually Wrote the Report?

Traditionally, police reports are expected to reflect an officer’s own observations, recollections, interpretations, and investigative judgment.

When AI generates a draft report, questions arise:

• What portions were written by the officer?
• What portions were created by the AI system?
• Did the officer independently verify every statement?
• Were any errors, omissions, or “hallucinations” introduced by the technology?

These questions become particularly important when officers later rely on their reports to refresh memory before testifying in court.

Disclosure and Defence Rights

Under Canadian law, the Crown must disclose all relevant fruits of the investigation to the defence.

Where AI assists in report generation, defence counsel may seek disclosure of:

• Original body-worn camera recordings;
• Audio files used by the AI system;
• AI-generated drafts;
• Audit logs and edit histories;
• Training materials and policies governing AI use;
• Reliability testing and validation studies.

These materials may be relevant to assessing the accuracy of police reports, the credibility of witnesses, and the reliability of the investigative process.

Surveillance and Digital Operations Centres

Police agencies are also expanding the use of digital surveillance technologies. New digital operations centres may allow investigators to collect, organize, and analyze large volumes of information from multiple sources.

As these systems become more sophisticated, concerns arise regarding:

• Privacy rights;
• Data retention;
• Data sharing;
• Algorithmic bias;
• Oversight and accountability.

For criminal defence lawyers, understanding how information was gathered and processed can be critical when assessing the legality of an investigation and whether Charter rights have been respected.

AI and the Canadian Courts

The use of AI within Canada’s court system remains far more limited than its use in policing.

Importantly, Canadian courts have not delegated judicial decision-making to artificial intelligence. In fact, the Federal Court of Canada has stated that AI should not be used to determine the issues raised by litigants or to make judgments without public consultation.

At the same time, courts and judicial organizations have begun exploring whether AI can assist with administrative tasks, legal research, case management, and document processing.

The Major Concerns

A growing body of Canadian legal scholarship identifies several significant concerns regarding AI in the justice system.

Transparency

One of the most serious challenges is explainability.

Many modern AI systems operate as “black boxes.” Even their developers may struggle to fully explain how a particular result was produced.

If an AI tool influences a police investigation or court process, defence counsel may ask:

• How did the system reach its conclusion?
• What data was used?
• Can its reasoning be independently verified?

Without meaningful answers, confidence in the justice system may be undermined.

Accuracy and Hallucinations

Generative AI systems can produce convincing but inaccurate information.

Legal researchers have documented situations where AI systems generated fictional legal authorities, incorrect factual assertions, or unsupported conclusions. Canadian courts have already encountered cases involving AI-generated citations that simply did not exist.

In criminal proceedings, even small inaccuracies can have serious consequences.

Bias and Fairness

AI systems learn from data. If historical data contains bias, the resulting AI outputs may reflect or even amplify those same biases.

Researchers have warned that algorithmic tools used in criminal justice may inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities affecting racialized communities, Indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups.

Accountability

When an AI system contributes to an error, who is responsible?

Is it the software developer?

The police service?

The officer who relied on the technology?

The government agency that approved its use?

These questions remain largely unresolved.

What This Means for Criminal Defendants

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into policing and court administration, defence lawyers will increasingly need to scrutinize how these systems are used.

Future criminal cases may involve challenges concerning:

• The reliability of AI-generated police reports and soon to be their notes;
• Disclosure of AI-generated materials;
• Preservation of digital evidence and audit logs;
• Privacy breaches and unlawful surveillance;
• Algorithmic bias;
• Charter compliance;
• The admissibility and weight of AI-influenced evidence.

The technology may be new, but the underlying legal principles remain the same.

Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, full disclosure, and the ability to challenge the evidence against them.

Looking Ahead

Artificial intelligence may ultimately become a permanent feature of Canada’s justice system. Whether it improves fairness and efficiency or creates new risks will depend on how it is implemented, regulated, and scrutinized.

Courts, police agencies, defence lawyers, privacy advocates, and legislators will all play a role in shaping that future.

For now, one thing is clear: whenever AI contributes to an investigation or prosecution, transparency, accountability, and respect for constitutional rights must remain at the centre of the discussion.